On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion on Terrorism and Censorship

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "It is against the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

are you saying that because some slip through the cracks here in america that we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded) to do such things a s a matter of ocurse?

you seem to be making the case that america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

To be fair, comparisons like this tend to be entirely biased by the side of the comparison we each come from and can be based and huge generalizations. ISIS is not a "culture of people" anymore than "whites" or "blacks" are. Americans are not a homogeneous group of freedom loving patriots. ISIS is a group of individuals that share some common beliefs and motivations, not necessarily including blatant celebration of murder and rape. Some who identify as ISIS certainly do, but not all. Americans tend to share some common beliefs and motivations as well, not necessarily including shooting at cops. Some Americans do, but not all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of ISIS, many of whom experienced the invasion and/or occupation of their countries by U.S. military and coalition forces, believe Americans to be terrorists. ISIS members stormed Sinjar and we can use this as an example of brutality, but in their minds (and sometimes in truth) the U.S. stormed their entire world and continues to do so on a daily basis using unmanned machines to do the killing.

"Terrorists" do not differentiate the way we choose to in our examples. Brutality is brutality. If brutality is thrust upon them by Americans, they are obliged to answer with brutality. It doesn't matter if the situations are factually different. It only matters what people believe to be the truth that motivates them. Some use religion and some use nationalism, but these are just rationalization for behavior.

ISIS is not a "country" capable of enacting any sort of legislation, so to say something is "illegal" in the U.S. means nothing in comparison to the actions of ISIS. Even if they choose to invoke some holy scripture as "law", it means nothing to those who do not recognize it as law. All sides are simply justifying behavior with their own set of beliefs.

That's why terrorism is not always about what is actually being perpetrated. It is about creating an environment of fear so that your victims believe you are in the position of power. Whether we are discussing rape, brutality by police, child abuse or military invasion, the victims will likely feel terrorized whether the action is illegal or not. That is why the original question concerning crime vs war is such a difficult one. What one side calls "war", the other calls "terrorism", but often they are one and the same. The only difference is the perspective you are viewing it from.

Leah Starspectre wrote: I think there may be a difference between men being the victim of violence and a man being involved in violent situations. That could just be playing semantics, though. I'm a very tall and powerful woman, but I still can't help but be on my guard when walking alone, or try not to meet eyes with a man who is ogling or catcalling me on the street , or try to slip away from a man who is being a little TOO friendly at a bar.

I think it's hard to understand the ingrained fear that many groups have: women, LGBT, First Nations, ethnic minorities....It's not the same kind of fear. It's one that comes from a lifetime of seeing the same harmful behaviour coming out of the culture that is supposed to nurture you. For some it's full blown fear, and well-justified, and in some cases (life my own) it's a more of a discomfort. But it's there and to deny its there's is contributing to the problem by not working to rectify it, and is ultimately harmful.

But that goes for all the points I brought up. If we don't acknowledge that the problem is there, we will never be able to improve it. I don't say solve, because I think that much of it is simply the dark side of humanity and will never go away, but if we can try to improve it, we're going the right thing.

No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

MadHatter wrote: No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

Sure, I'll agree that crime is on the decline, but just because it's happening less, that doesn't mean that the fear will automatically vanish. As a woman I have that discomfort of being the target of sexual violence (and I have been the victim of this as well), but it doesn't stop me from going out. The fear doesn't control me. But that doesn't mean that the fear has gone, and that others who have greater fear should be ashamed for having fear. Not everyone has that strength.

Look, I'm not trying to play the "who has more privilege" game here. I was trying to make the point that women have it rough (and no, that doesn't mean that men have an easy time), but thousands of years of gender inequality take their toll. And every time you respond with "Women are still systematically abused" with "But my life was hard and I'm ok!", you're undermining what feminism has been working to dispel.

PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: No men are more likely to be robbed, assulted or the victim of a violent crime in general ( See section on violent crime by gender http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html) So to say that men are more likely to be in violent situations vs a victim is trivializing the reality that men are more likely to be hurt.

Further the fears of minority groups? I am bisexual and know the fear of gay bashing and the like so does my boyfriend. However that does not change that crime is on the decline meaning you are in fact safer then you have ever been. That means whatever fears you have are less and less likely to come to light each year. That is what I am getting at. Letting fears based on the random and unlikely rule you is not healthy. I mean I grew up poor and male two of the highest groups for being the victim of violence. I was abused growing up and have been robbed at gun point once. However that does not mean I let fear rule my heart. Just because something COULD happen does not mean its common. The fact is crime makes news because its not the norm. If it was the norm it wouldnt be news worthy. Its important to be realistic about our worries otherwise they eat at us and skew our world view.

Sure, I'll agree that crime is on the decline, but just because it's happening less, that doesn't mean that the fear will automatically vanish. As a woman I have that discomfort of being the target of sexual violence (and I have been the victim of this as well), but it doesn't stop me from going out. The fear doesn't control me. But that doesn't mean that the fear has gone, and that others who have greater fear should be ashamed for having fear. Not everyone has that strength.

Look, I'm not trying to play the "who has more privilege" game here. I was trying to make the point that women have it rough (and no, that doesn't mean that men have an easy time), but thousands of years of gender inequality take their toll. And every time you respond with "Women are still systematically abused" with "But my life was hard and I'm ok!", you're undermining what feminism has been working to dispel.

PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

There is no systematic violence unless you are caught in a violent relationship or caught in a cult or something else just as unlikely. Crime of ALL sorts is on the down trend and the world is better then it ever has been. In my life I have been the victim of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, jumpings, robbery at gun point, and discrimination based on my skin color and sexual preference. Guess what that still does not mean because I had it bad that the world is a bad place. I just means I got really unlucky more then once. Did I take what happened to me a lesson and learn to protect myself yea I did. But I do not fear those things any more then I fear a house fire or natural disaster. Its not even the people who have been victims that I am worried about here. They have every right to have some fear and I hope they see past it some day. Its the people that use these things to make it seem like the world is some dark and terrible place when in reality if you live in a first world nation your life is going to be pretty dang safe for the vast majority of people.

Leah Starspectre wrote: PLUS it was only one aspect of several examples of violence in North American society. Why focus your displeasure on just one of them? Are you saying that rape and violence towards women is a non-issue when it comes to the problem of systemic violence here?

I don't think things are as you say in the US. The vast majority of women I know have no such fear. Maybe that's just coincidental, but I sure hope not. The only people I know personally who have these fears are usually feminists who have surrounded themselves with the concept of sexual violence, but as to whether they found that community due to their fears or if the community inspired their fears, or if the two aren't related at all, I can't possibly know.
With that being said, violence against anyone is illegal. We specifically have laws against violence against women, to the point where it's included in the name of the legislation itself. Rape is illegal. The acts of rape and violence are not considered good by anyone that I've ever met. The acts of rape and violence are not advocated by our government or our society at large. This isn't a systematic problem in America.
In Germany, however, 2000 men allegedly assaulted 1200 women sexually over New Years. The authorities, presumably not wanting to incite violence or hatred against migrants (who were at least primarily the people committing these specific attacks) covered it up. That is a systematic problem.
You're Canadian, right? I don't know much about Canada. Is it more like the US or more like Germany?

I'm not a fan of statistics...they're too easily manipulated. But this is what I found:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr06_vic2/p3.html

Perhaps something like sexual assault is better considered an endemic disease in society compared to terrorism being epidemic in its appearance, lifespan... and severity!?

TheDude wrote:
But they don't consider themselves to be rabid and thousands of their supporters don't, either. They are contesting their code of ethics against yours. Who are you or me to say "Shariah law is wrong"? It's a different code of ethics, sure. In our own doctrine, it says "... and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time." I certainly don't personally support it, but I don't think there's any moral high ground to have. Have you ever heard the phrase "villains are just heroes of the other side"?...

On the contrary I absolutely have the ability to judge the high moral ground here. I discussed this earlier but we as a species are constantly evolving our sense of morality. Now morality will never be an absolute but it will be an objective truth based on consensus. We as a species decided that the Nazis were immoral and we ended their reign, we as a species decided that slavery was immoral and we ended that. And yes we as a nation have done atrocious things and justified them for various means up to and including purely selfishness ones. The eradication of the American Indians are an example of that. But in the end we also realized we had done something wrong and reparations were made. In fact they are still being made. There are still court battles going on over the Sioux Nation and their claim on the Black Hills. We are not perfect but we strive in this nation to put the best process in place to make things as fair and honest and forthright as possible and that is a process under constant evaluation and change. The fact that we just gave LGBT Marriage rights is proof enough of that.

Do you think that LGBT will ever get those sort of rights under Shariah law? No they will not. In fact they will have their heads cut off just for being LGBT – no other questions asked. Shariah law is one where its participants embrace and even celebrate genocide, violence, oppression, bigotry, and racism. They are misogynists that couldn’t care less about human life and suffering outside their own small, petty perceptions of the world. Our bombs may have killed civilians in the past but that has never been a target in any military campaign the US has ever undertaken. ISIS, on the other hand, purposely targets civilian populations while avoiding military targets. They do this not in an attempt to win a war or gain an objective. They do it for the sheer pleasure of terrorizing others in the pursuit of continued, never ending violence. War is their way of life and they revel in that to the point that those that sacrifice themselves for the cause are held in the highest regard.

So yes, I can absolutely judge their way of life. It is wrong and morally corrupt and needs to be stopped. On just another couple of quick notes – the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to target civilians. In fact those cities had not been bombed before in contrast to much of the rest of Japan by that point in the war. Because of that there were high concentrations of Military personnel in those cities in addition to military facilities and military factory’s. So those cities were, in fact, military targets. I have already discussed the Nazi counterpoint in previous replies but just to recap, the Neo-Nazis of today are in no way shape or form the death machine storm troopers of yesteryear and so the point that the ideology still exists is irrelevant.

There are always going to be threats to our ways of life and to us as a species. Violence and oppression and crime are components of our existence that will never go away. But we as a species do have the ability to see those things for what they are when they happen and judge them to be something we need to address. Sometimes we will have to use violent means in that pursuit. That is just the nature of the universe we live in. It is a violent one. Something has to be destroyed to make room for something new. We take on oppressive organizations like ISIS in the hopes that in the wake of their destruction something new will evolve, new ways of thinking and new ways of being, the hope that negotiation and compromise will one day be the vehicle that decides how we live and not war. But that can never be accomplished with an enemy not willing to sit down at the table. In fact they would rather burn the table than consider it a means to peace.

And, yes there are components of our society here that are less than desirable. Women are raped and men are assaulted or killed and children are sold into slavery. The difference between our society and the societies like ISIS is that those things are illegal in this country and we have organized forces in police and FBI etc to fight against them. In societies like ISIS they are not outside the law but the law itself and they are celebrated!

Are you actually going to try and tell me that I can witness the systematic and condoned suffering of other members of my species at the hands of these organizations and yet not be able to judge it as wrong?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
I have already discussed the Nazi counterpoint in previous replies but just to recap, the Neo-Nazis of today are in no way shape or form the death machine storm troopers of yesteryear and so the point that the ideology still exists is irrelevant.

The fact that the ideology exists IS relevant. What would happen if other powers didn't keep this ideology in check? They could easily become storm troopers again.

The ideology was not destroyed by force. We can stop an organization by force, but if the ideology still exists, it will lurk in the shadows, waiting to emerge again. Only by changing the ideology can we stop it.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Gwinn wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Gwinn wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You say we can’t kill an ideology? Was the ideology of Nazism killed? I think it was and it took extreme means to accomplish that but it was successful. Today we don’t seem to have the resolve we once did to do what it takes to accomplish a similar goal with radical jihadists. As for them not being countries, on the contrary they do occupy land and have established bases.

Note: Spoiler contains Nazi imagery and may be unsuitable and/or prohibited. Please view with discretion.

Hey when these guys march across Europe and reactivate the concentration camps let me know.. mkay?

To be fair, you were talking about ideology. These photos show that ideology is not dead. It doesn't take many to operate a terror group. These guys can easily make life miserable for a lot of people.

The point is that even though force crushed the regime based on the ideology, that ideology is not dead. In fact, it's hate and intolerance that allows it to spread.

and our culture so values life and freedom that we allow these people to dress in their outfits and speak their views so long as they dont actually hurt anyone

are we perfect? no

but you cannot compare the way that america treats non conformists (including lgbt) to the way daesh does

nor can you back up the implication that the western powers are anywhere near as brutal to our enemies or rivals either

there is a world of difference and if you cant see that youre blind

and daesh has declared war, openly

they literally say that they are at war with the west: is that something you think we should pretend isnt a real threat?

I'm not sure I see where I mentioned anything about daesh/isis or the difference between the way they treat people or the way we treat people. I am addressing the way ideologies have to change. If we want people to change the way they treat people here, we need to change the way they think. You can't force someone to do this. You need to persuade them. The same goes for over there--we can kill as many people as we want, but we will not wipe out the ideology with bullets and bombs.

You make some good points, Kyrin. I've argued to the contrary, but reading this entire conversation is leading me to another possible conclusion. Crime, terrorism, violence, and morality is judged differently on a macro versus micro level.

On the micro level, to the individual victim, whoever perpetrated the violence upon them will always be morally wrong. The victims of terrorism will always see the group or individual responsible as the enemy. Individual extremists may see the U.S. and the western world as "terrorists" based on their own experiences. Individual victims of rape or violence will always live with the fear of it happening again, regardless of the progress on a large scale made to minimize these risks. I've been arguing from the point of view of these individuals.

I see now that you, Kyrin, are arguing more from the macro level. Our western society, as a whole, has made great progress toward curbing violence and promoting equality. We have struggled against the scourges of slavery and religiously motivated genocide. We more recently made steps toward being more accepting of the LGBT community. On a large scale, we have much to be proud of.

On the macro level, we all agree that the Nazi movement in Germany had some horrific results and the war to put an end to it was justified. On a micro level, a polish soldier forced into the German Army against his will who disagreed with the Nazi platform of religious and racial persecution and genocide still ended up dead from an American bullet.

On a macro level, we agree that ISIS and extremists like them are immoral and need to be dealt with, perhaps with extreme prejudice. On a micro level, one of these may be a misguided and angry teenager manipulated by others to carry out these terrorist acts.

These are some new thoughts on the subject so I'm sure they need to be refined further.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "inst the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

because some slip through the cracks we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded)

you think america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery?

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

Yes, there is absolutely a sexual slave market in the USA (which includes domestic and imported victims), including children, "mail order brides", and a trafficked women. PLUS all of the above in the form of pornographic videos and photographs.

Yes, woman are being raped and sexually assaulted at an alarming rate, and they are doubted and blamed.

Yes, there are groups in America that are calling for the murder of other groups of people (ex. capital punishment, pro-lifers, neo-nazis, anti-LGBT groups). And there are people who do perpetrate these murders, although they are somewhat retrained by the law and so tend to work sporadically and not as groups (they're mainly connected by ideology rather than an organized group). Go ahead and ask a black trans woman (or any other intersectional person, really) in any given American city and she'll probably tell you that she lives in fear of harm every time she steps foot outside her home - if she even has one.

The fact that laws exist to combat discrimination simply pushes it underground. So if the only difference is that some people/groups can be brutal openly and others need to hide it, is it REALLY a difference after all?

so you cannot actually provide any evidence to suppoirt the claim that america is just as violent and brutal to its outsiders as daesh is?

right?

you have no evidence, only your feelings, correct?

neither of the following links are from what you can call "neutral parties"but then again neutral parties may be the most disgusting parties of all when it comes to these kinds of issues

from: https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows-just-how-racist-america-s-police-brutality-problem-is#.GsnGa4hxH

"White officers kill black suspects twice a week in the United States, or an average of 96 times a year."

from: https://76crimes.com/100s-die-in-homophobic-anti-gay-attacks-statistics-updates/

"In the United States, out of the almost 6,000 hate crimes committed in 2013, 20 percent (approximately 1,200) were based on victims’ sexual orientation, according to the FBI."

so in one year there was approximately 1,200 "hate crimes" reported against people for their sexual orientation and about 96 blacks are killed by police officers in the United States (for all number of reasons, some of which are fair)

from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31962755

In August 2007 jihadists attacked Yazidi villages in Nineveh, killing between 400 and 700 people

one month! this was several years ago btw, case you didnt notice, and only reflects the numbers of people who were actually MURDERED (from one village in one month)

so its not counting the thousands who lost their homes (in that one month) or those girls who were taken into slavery, who we could argue suffer a much worse fate) are half of the numbers for an entire year here in the US

" "In some instances, villages were entirely emptied of their Yazidi population."
A statement by the OHCHR says: "One witness described how two ISIL members sat laughing as two teenage girls were raped in the next room.
"A pregnant woman, repeatedly raped by an ISIL 'doctor' over a period of two-and-a-half months, said he deliberately sat on her stomach.
"He told her: 'This baby should die because it is an infidel; I can make a Muslim baby'. ""

do you think this is all just being made up? a dozen different sources of different instances all point to the same thing

and understand that the term "hate crime" in america doesnt mean only murder and rape, or attacks of such magnitude; if someone spits a goober at someone while calling them a fag, that is a hate crime.
a slap in the face is assault, and if it is determined that it was motivated by anti lgbt sentiments then it is a hate crime.

matter of fact, spray painting nasty words or symbols on the side of a building is a hate crime in the USA

now, i am not promoting the view that lgbt issues are not legitimate issues; they are. i have done fundraising and organizing work for HRC as a canvasser, and i am very much in support of lgbt rights

also there is an obvious history of deliberate oppression of minorities, particularly blacks, in america
and as a group they still suffer as a result of that history and the nation has not done all of what it could (or should) to make equality a reality, i mean it is a struggle and there are those who have been working for a long time, some progress has been made and some continues to be, but its still far from perfect and i see that

but neither blacks nor lgbt's as groups in america are facing anything near what the yazidis are facing at the hands of daesh,

both blacks and lgbts have got mechanisms for improvement which are built into the fabric of our political and social system, there are people who fight for the rights of minorities in america

we actually have that as a cultural value for a large portion of our population

the genocide against the yazidis is only one example of many, of daesh evil

from the above link:
"In a new report, it says IS had "the intent... to destroy the Yazidi as a group."
Tens of thousands of Yazidis fled villages in northern Iraq amid IS advances last summer. Many were killed or captured and enslaved."

and that is the official policy of daesh leadership

the official policy of USA leadership is that attacking people is against the law, and raping people is against the law, and enslaving people is against the law

youre a nice person and i dont have any desire to generate negativity between us

youve taken a position that i consider to be totally ridiculous and you have nothing to back it up with

you dont acknowledge the horrors being reported, thats the biggest thing to me, that youve got the information right inf ront of you and you just ignore it

and the fact that america has a process that is designed to punish people who inflict this kind of violence on others, while daesh rewards them and that IS a serious difference

unless you start recognizing the information thats being presented to you or you can present some information to back up your position, i dont think we have anything else to say to each other on this topic

peace

Gwinn wrote:

The fact that the ideology exists IS relevant. What would happen if other powers didn't keep this ideology in check? They could easily become storm troopers again.

The ideology was not destroyed by force. We can stop an organization by force, but if the ideology still exists, it will lurk in the shadows, waiting to emerge again. Only by changing the ideology can we stop it.

Once again, no its not and here is why. In fact the two have quite a few differences. The original Nazis were a political movement that believed in Aryan supremacy. They believed in a military dictatorship and the eradication of several components of their nation including many white factions to achieve racial purity. They took this ideology to the world by forcefully invading Europe and enacted the systematic extermination of races such as the Jews in concentration camps. (The holocaust).

While Modern day Neo-Nazis do carry some of the ideologies of the original Nazi movement, they are not a political party and they believe more in white supremacy rather than racial purity. They are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part and they deny the Holocaust ever happened. Nazism and Neo-Nazism are currently banned the Germany.

The biggest difference between the two movements and the reason that we as a species can live with Neo-Nazis but not the original Nazis is that even though Neo-Nazis live a lifestyle that could be deemed as counterproductive to our species as a whole, none are born or enter into that lifestyle that are systematically oppressed or without the option to leave at any time as many of the different ethnic groups were that lived in Germany during the reign of the original Nazis. The Neo-Nazis operate within the boundaries of US law and they do not visit organized systematic violence on others outside their belief system in an effort to force them to conform to their lifestyle.

the Neo_Nazi movement has evolved into something quite different than the original Nazi movement. This was done by violence - unfortunate but necessary. We should have the hope that organizations like ISIS evolve in a similar manner. We may never follow or believe in their ideologies just as we may never fully believe in the ideologies of other Arab nations but the goal is to get them to a place where we can live side by side with them and to stop the oppression and violence. This is something that often times takes force, especially in the face of an enemy unwilling to accept any sort of peaceful solution, just like what happened with the original Nazis.

Senan wrote: You make some good points, Kyrin. I've argued to the contrary, but reading this entire conversation is leading me to another possible conclusion. Crime, terrorism, violence, and morality is judged differently on a macro versus micro level.

On the micro level, to the individual victim, whoever perpetrated the violence upon them will always be morally wrong. The victims of terrorism will always see the group or individual responsible as the enemy. Individual extremists may see the U.S. and the western world as "terrorists" based on their own experiences. Individual victims of rape or violence will always live with the fear of it happening again, regardless of the progress on a large scale made to minimize these risks. I've been arguing from the point of view of these individuals.

I see now that you, Kyrin, are arguing more from the macro level. Our western society, as a whole, has made great progress toward curbing violence and promoting equality. We have struggled against the scourges of slavery and religiously motivated genocide. We more recently made steps toward being more accepting of the LGBT community. On a large scale, we have much to be proud of.

On the macro level, we all agree that the Nazi movement in Germany had some horrific results and the war to put an end to it was justified. On a micro level, a polish soldier forced into the German Army against his will who disagreed with the Nazi platform of religious and racial persecution and genocide still ended up dead from an American bullet.

On a macro level, we agree that ISIS and extremists like them are immoral and need to be dealt with, perhaps with extreme prejudice. On a micro level, one of these may be a misguided and angry teenager manipulated by others to carry out these terrorist acts.

These are some new thoughts on the subject so I'm sure they need to be refined further.

Thank you, That was very well said! I agree completely with your points. We as a species need to keep a constant vigilance over our own actions in a never ending effort to self police ourselves so that we may ever evolve towards a more just and peaceful and balance existence generally as a species. We will never attain perfection but that does not mean we should ever stop trying. The Journey in the point and the constant progression towards a more harmonious and productive life for ALL is the goal.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: [Neo-Nazis] are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part ...

Neo-Nazism is simply a peaceful, counter-cultural movement, a la the hippies of the 1960s? I think I've read it all now. Nazi apologism on the TOTJO. What's next, alt-right added as one of the SIGs? Anyway, here are some Facts™, not that I imagine they will be of much interest.

Germany's New Old Problem: The Rise of Neo-Nazi Violence

‘We don’t believe in candles and flowers’: Neo-Nazis bring violence to peace vigil in Brussels

German neo-Nazi protesters clash with police at new migrant shelter

‘Neo-Nazi gangs paint blood swastikas’ at violent clash with anti-fascists in Dover

Mar del Plata’s dark secret: Neo-Nazi violence in an Argentine beachside retreat

Far-right racist terror surges in Europe as Austrian neo-Nazi who threatened to massacre refugees is arrested

Masked 'Neo-Nazis' Assault Migrants In Sweden

Anders Behring Breivik (neo-Nazi who killed almost 80 people in Norway in 2011)

Senan wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "It is against the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

are you saying that because some slip through the cracks here in america that we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded) to do such things a s a matter of ocurse?

you seem to be making the case that america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

To be fair, comparisons like this tend to be entirely biased by the side of the comparison we each come from and can be based and huge generalizations. ISIS is not a "culture of people" anymore than "whites" or "blacks" are. Americans are not a homogeneous group of freedom loving patriots. ISIS is a group of individuals that share some common beliefs and motivations, not necessarily including blatant celebration of murder and rape. Some who identify as ISIS certainly do, but not all. Americans tend to share some common beliefs and motivations as well, not necessarily including shooting at cops. Some Americans do, but not all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of ISIS, many of whom experienced the invasion and/or occupation of their countries by U.S. military and coalition forces, believe Americans to be terrorists. ISIS members stormed Sinjar and we can use this as an example of brutality, but in their minds (and sometimes in truth) the U.S. stormed their entire world and continues to do so on a daily basis using unmanned machines to do the killing.

"Terrorists" do not differentiate the way we choose to in our examples. Brutality is brutality. If brutality is thrust upon them by Americans, they are obliged to answer with brutality. It doesn't matter if the situations are factually different. It only matters what people believe to be the truth that motivates them. Some use religion and some use nationalism, but these are just rationalization for behavior.

ISIS is not a "country" capable of enacting any sort of legislation, so to say something is "illegal" in the U.S. means nothing in comparison to the actions of ISIS. Even if they choose to invoke some holy scripture as "law", it means nothing to those who do not recognize it as law. All sides are simply justifying behavior with their own set of beliefs.

That's why terrorism is not always about what is actually being perpetrated. It is about creating an environment of fear so that your victims believe you are in the position of power. Whether we are discussing rape, brutality by police, child abuse or military invasion, the victims will likely feel terrorized whether the action is illegal or not. That is why the original question concerning crime vs war is such a difficult one. What one side calls "war", the other calls "terrorism", but often they are one and the same. The only difference is the perspective you are viewing it from.

the word "culture" is a lot like "religion" in that there is no one single definition which applies to every instance

i respect your point about the difference of experience and perspectives within any given racial group for instance, but daesh is not nearly as large and diverse a group as "white people" or "black people" in america

they are pretty culturally homogeneous, religiously and ideologically coherent, unified under a single leader with a definite command structure and specific tenants which they agree are correct and agree to follow

they are cohesive with each other in the pursuit of specific goals

they are not only muslims, but they are muslims who agree that Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri is their caliph and that their caliphate is the legitimate and divinely ordained caliphate of the world

they agree to this enough to fight for it, how many of them really believe it "in their hearts" is impossible to know for sure

but they most definitely do count as a culture, or at least a sub-culture, if you prefer. an extremely violent and dangerous culture

that they are each individuals is true and well and good, but seeing america and the west as enemies is only one aspect of their belief system, they are united in a vision of their caliphate, and they are exterminating people who do not submit

so at a certain point their justifications become irrelevant to the rest of the world, not because they dont have as much right to their own ideas as everyone else, but because the pursuit of their ideas results in the murder and subjugation of literally everyone they make contact with, so respecting their views and their rights to have those views as valid is accepting that they have the right to murder everyone who disagrees with them

even where you could provide examples of american behavior which seems to fit that same description, so too will you find checks and balances, some kind of limiting force to such within american policy or the american culture; theres always laws and rules which place limitations on what we can do and there are always people who are watching and who want to see people who violate those limits held accountable

does that always work? no of course not
but america as a culture still widely agrees that such limitations need to exist, even if we dont agree on exactly where the lines need to be drawn

bottom line: if you can find a way to convince daesh to stop raping and murdering people, then we can make a case that they have a right to their views

Adi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: [Neo-Nazis] are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part ...

Neo-Nazism is simply a peaceful, counter-cultural movement, a la the hippies of the 1960s? I think I've read it all now. Nazi apologism on the TOTJO. What's next, alt-right added as one of the SIGs? Anyway, here are some Facts™, not that I imagine they will be of much interest.

Germany's New Old Problem: The Rise of Neo-Nazi Violence

‘We don’t believe in candles and flowers’: Neo-Nazis bring violence to peace vigil in Brussels

German neo-Nazi protesters clash with police at new migrant shelter

‘Neo-Nazi gangs paint blood swastikas’ at violent clash with anti-fascists in Dover

Mar del Plata’s dark secret: Neo-Nazi violence in an Argentine beachside retreat

Far-right racist terror surges in Europe as Austrian neo-Nazi who threatened to massacre refugees is arrested

Masked 'Neo-Nazis' Assault Migrants In Sweden

Anders Behring Breivik (neo-Nazi who killed almost 80 people in Norway in 2011)

i wouldnt call neo nazism peaceful either but in the context of this discussion i would say that when they inflict their violence on others, we, as a culture, agree that the men (and women) with guns need to go and get them

the point that i see being made here is that the skin heads are perfectly free in our society to be idiots and to believe in idiotic things, SO LONG AS THEY DONT HARM ANYONE

once they exceed that limitation, it is perfectly justifiable to use violence in order to get them under control

and it was definitely the use of violence which ended the threat of the original nazis

OB1Shinobi wrote:
i wouldnt call neo nazism peaceful either but in the context of this discussion i would say that when they inflict their violence on others, we, as a culture, agree that the men (and women) with guns need to go and get them

the point that i see being made here is that the skin heads are perfectly free in our society to be idiots and to believe in idiotic things, SO LONG AS THEY DONT HARM ANYONE

once they exceed that limitation, it is perfectly justifiable to use violence in order to get them under control

it was definitely the use of violence which ended the threat of the original nazis

I could not have said it better. Thank you!

OB1Shinobi wrote: They are pretty culturally homogeneous, religiously and ideologically coherent, unified under a single leader with a definite command structure and specific tenants which they agree are correct and agree to follow

they are cohesive with each other in the pursuit of specific goals

they most definitely do count as a culture, or at least a sub-culture, if you prefer

that they are each individuals is true and well and good, but seeing america and the west as enemies is only one aspect of their belief system, they are united in a vision of their caliphate, and they are exterminating people who do not submit

so at a certain point their justifications become irrelevant to the rest of the world, not because they dont have as much right to their own ideas as everyone else, but because the pursuit of their ideas results in the murder and subjugation of literally everyone they make contact with, so respecting their views and their rights to have those views as valid is accepting that they have the right to murder everyone who disagrees with them

even where you could provide examples of american behavior which seems to fit that same description, so too will you find checks and balances, some kind of limiting force to such within american policy or the american culture; theres always laws and rules which place limitations on what we can do and there are always people who are watching and who want to see people who violate those limits held accountable

does that always work? no of course not
but america as a culture still widely agrees that such limitations need to exist, even if we dont agree on exactly where the lines need to be drawn

bottom line: if you can find a way to convince daesh to stop raping and murdering people, then we can make a case that they have a right to their views

These are serious questions, because I don't know enough about daesh or ISIS to know.

If they are in fact a sub-culture with organized leadership command structure, agreed upon tenets, cohesive and specific objectives and a unified goal of creating their caliphate (I have no evidence to believe otherwise), why would we consider them any less capable of checking and balancing their behavior the way Americans do? Perhaps raping and murdering people is acceptable in their culture now, but the culture will eventually mature the way American culture has? Could they not be held to the same standard that we are when it comes to allowing people to agree upon what is and isn't legal/ethical/moral within their culture and time? And if so, do we have the right to impose our rule of law on a sub-culture clearly capable of establishing their own just because we disagree with it?

I ask because if they are bent on rape and murder (which I agree many seem to be), who among them decides whom you can rape or murder and whom you can't? I know that Sharia law comes into play, and if that's the ethical system they choose to use and they all agree, are they all wrong? Those they murder would likely say they are wrong, but it is up to those people to defend their own culture, society and ethical system.

I guess I just get very confused by the Catch 22 of recognizing daesh as an organized and cohesive culture with defined leadership while at the same time claiming they are incapable of developing ethical or moral behavior that works for them. Clearly they believe that they are righteous in this quest. It just seems that their morality and ethics do not mesh well with their neighbors. At some point we can step in to defend those neighbor nations who ask for our help, but what of those who do not want American involvement or consider us an enemy as well? What comes to those loyal to daesh who desire to live in this new caliphate under their chosen ethical system? Would they not all end up fighting among themselves, raping and murdering each other?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Are you actually going to try and tell me that I can witness the systematic and condoned suffering of other members of my species at the hands of these organizations and yet not be able to judge it as wrong?

While our country is bombing innocent men, women, and children, when we push our political ideals on other countries, when we are unwavering in our choices and we consider ourselves superior to all other people as a country -- sure. You can judge something as wrong. But then you'll have a heck of a time excusing your own country's actions. Tell those people who lost friends and family members due to YOUR tax dollars (and mine as well) that they should just get over it and lecture them about how your morals are superior to theirs. You can do that while they're grieving for their children and see how it works. Feel free to judge them, but first you've got to establish that your ideals are objectively better than theirs. You may not be directly responsible for killing babies, but you and I are both indirectly responsible for it. How do we reserve the right to judge them for attacking us after we killed their children? After we killed their mothers and fathers, friends, cousins, neighbors, nephews and nieces?
You and I are both responsible for that. We are both to blame for that. Just like every single US citizen. How are we better? We are different when it comes to certain issues. But unless you're going to claim that there is an objective standard by which we can judge our actions compared to theirs and see which is better, all you can say is that you prefer the ethics of the West over their ethics. And why wouldn't you? You have, presumably, been raised in the US and have gone to US schools, been raised by US citizens. Of course your morals would be in line with the morals advocated by our society. If you were born in Afghanistan, you might not think so.